Wikipedia:Editorially involved
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Whether or not an editor or group of editors is "involved" in a specific topic area is sometimes of considerable interest.
This is especially true where a group of editors form an unpaid Claque in any topic area. Signs of such a claque or "common interest group" include substantial overlap in articles by any group of editors, whether formally or informally established, who routinely back each other up in matters of procedure or opinion. It also may show up as any group of editors with a substantial overlap in comments on User Talk pages.
Frequently this shows up as "alternating reverters" where one person reverts any edit the group dislikes, and, if the edit is redone, a second editor then does a revert.
It also shows up as "I agree with editor 'X'" type comments on a regular basis in any given topic area.
It is here proposed that such use of a "common interest group" whether formally or informally established is to be avoided, and that where such exists that it should be strongly deprecated in both value in establishing "consensus" and in establishing any actions against any editor not part of the common interest group.
Further, that any on-wiki or off-wiki establishment of any such group should be strongly deprecated.
The proper functioning of "consensus" is made impossible where such groups occur, and therefore the establishment of valid encyclopedia entries is made impossible by any such group.